User Reviews

Valley of the Dolls was the most hyped movie in 1967. People who come here to read about it probably have already seen it, and also know at least some of the back story about it, so I won't belabor all that. What follows instead is my view of where this film fits in its time. If you haven't seen the movie, and if you are genuinely curious about it, read on. I have no spoilers, and I have a suggestion for you.

It's been said that 1967 was the best year ever for movies. The Graduate, Cool Hand Luke, In The Heat of the Night, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Bonnie and Clyde, and The Dirty Dozen. Remarkable films all. There might be one such notable movie in any one year. Two would be unusual. But six in one year? Extraordinary.

And, dropping down a notch, even some of the lesser known or less remembered 1967 offerings were pretty good. It was the middle of the cold war, so the spy genre dominated. Sean Connery made his 007 appearance in You Only Live Twice. But the James Bond franchise had some competition in 1967. James Coburn appeared in two, In Like Flint and The President's Analyst. And then there was the big budget spoof, Casino Royale. I'm tempted to mention Dean Martin and The Ambushers and include it on the 1967 spy movie list, but, to be honest, it's a movie that deserves to be forgotten. Beyond the spy stuff, George C. Scott was the Film Flam Man, and Julie Andrews was Thoroughly Modern Millie.

1967 was indeed a very good year for movies. It's hard to flatly state that it was the very best movie year ever, because how could one possibly measure that? It is based on pure opinion. But I can't name another year that was any better than 1967.

Which brings us back to the Valley of the Dolls, whose makers surely endeavored with it to make the very best film of 1967. It's bemusing to read or hear laments about how dreadful Valley of the Dolls is. Hello? Valley of the Dolls is what it is, and a big-budget Hollywood production of a Jacqueline Susann novel is what it is. This is what you get when you do that. What, you seriously expected something else? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It really doesn't seem quite so awful when you think about it that way.

Or, look at it this way: compare Jacqueline Susann to Harold Robbins. Contemporaries, although Susann died way too young at 56. Both plied the epic pulp fiction trade, and both were enormously successful at it. Both followed the same basic formula, exploiting tawdry little scandalous shockers --things that pushed the envelope of moral acceptability in those more encumbered times-- shocking the world by telling the dirty little secrets of the rich, powerful, and famous, and the things that they were supposedly doing behind the scenes. And both had big novels adapted to the big screen. Does anyone lament about how awful The Carpetbaggers or The Adventurers are? Why not? Because they are good? Well, not exactly. Maybe it's because no one ever had any other expectations.

Did any studio ever spend the kind of money adapting a Harold Robbins movie that was spent on Valley of the Dolls, and then hype it to the same extent? Not that I know of. Valley of the Dolls was off the charts. The error of raised expectations, that's what happened here. And it's obvious how it happened. The studio took a monumentally best-selling epic novel, and banked on piggy-backing their way to a monumentally huge epic blockbuster. So in that spirit they poured a lot into it. As a production, the movie is first rate. Good stars and a good cast. Good sets. Fashionable fashions. Style. And a soundtrack second to none. And it all works. As best as it can anyway, given the source material.

Much of the criticism of the movie can be tied to one fundamental flaw in the basic premise. Jacqueline Susann was a woman of the 1940s and 1950s, and her story fits those times, when Judy Garland really was hooked on barbiturates and amphetamines. But Valley of the Dolls is a 1967 movie, with a 1967 setting, and by 1967 Susann's premise was old hat, even passé. This flaw in timing seriously undermines the story and the movie.

So what we have is a big-budget movie made with production values galore, but based on a cheesy quasi-romance, quasi-pulp novel, and which is out of sync timing-wise. But, hey, other than all that, it's a good movie. It does manage to rise above its problems. Its superior production values save it.

Many people view Valley of the Dolls as a curiosity, because of Sharon Tate. Okay. It is a showcase for her. Oddly it also tries to showcase Barbara Parkins and Patty Duke. All three were budding starlets who surely saw this film as a major career opportunity. Odd, because it utterly failed to boost anyone's career. Patty Duke was already famous for her Oscar-winning role in Miracle Worker, and for her own television series, still her main claims to fame. Barbara Parkins's career never really went anywhere. Sharon Tate most likely would've gone on to greater things, but never got the chance. This became her primary showcase.

For those of you who haven't seen Valley of the Dolls, I strongly recommend that you read the book first. Most of us who saw it in 1967 did it that way. I believe that the movie will be much more meaningful that way.

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying was my personal favorite 1967 movie. Just an opinion. I believe it captures the times the best. Valley of the Dolls is out of time, but is still worth seeing.

This is one of those films where the source material is much stronger than the screen production.

This version shows moments of high potential but the tension is felt only in thin, fleeting moments. The film begins closely following Anne and her departure from a sleepy, snowy New England village to the sloshy streets of New York. Somewhere in the middle we lose sight of Anne, follow Neely into ruthless stardom, and weave in and out of Tony and Jennifer's relationship and decline. The dolls are a prop until their name is first mention and we see that the Neely is hooked. When we reach her breakdown in the alley (Gone. Neely. Neely O'Hara!), the emotional closeness is much too late and fizzes into nothing during the next scene. 'Oh, Anne redeems herself!' Then, roll credits.

Wait, who's perspective are we following here?

Copyright 15 December 1967 by Red Lion Productions. Released through 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening simultaneously at the Criterion and the Festival: 15 December 1967. U.S. release: 15 December 1967. U.K. release: 11 February 1968. Australian release: 1 August 1968. Sydney opening at the Plaza. 11,086 feet. 123 minutes. Censored by approximately 90 seconds in Australia.

SYNOPSIS: Filled with innocent enthusiasm, Anne Welles arrives in New York from New England and lands a secretarial job with a leading theatrical law firm. On her first day, she is present at a Broadway rehearsal when a hard-boiled musical comedy star, Helen Lawson, sacks a talented newcomer named Neely O'Hara because she threatens to steal the show from her. Although disillusioned, Anne stays with her job because of Lyon Burke, an associate in the law firm. Lyon gets Neely a spot on a TV show which catapults her to instant stardom in Hollywood.

NOTES: Location scenes filmed in New York and New England. On 21 July 1967, shortly after shooting on "Valley of the Dolls" was completed, producer David Weisbart, 52, died of a stroke he suffered while playing golf with Mark Robson, the film's director.

The role of Helen Lawson was originally slated for Judy Garland. After 20th Century-Fox claimed that she "withdrew for personal reasons" (a statement denied by Miss Garland), both Bette Davis and Tammy Grimes were announced as her replacement. When Susan Hayward was ultimately signed for the part, arrangements were made for Margaret Whiting to do the dubbing for Miss Hayward's one song number.

With gross rentals of $20 million, this movie was equal 4th at U.S./Canadian ticket-windows for 1968. On the other hand, the movie did not figure on either British or Australian top-success lists at all!

COMMENT: The womenfolk may dote on this slickly-produced parade of souped-up emotions and super-charged clichés. For us men, however, it's a somewhat disappointing affair. We see almost nothing of Hollywood at work. The book was a sensational best-seller because it reputedly lifted the lid off the private lives of some well-known stars. But all this has been deleted in the film. There is some resemblance between the Patty Duke character and Judy Garland, between Barbara Parkins and Suzy Parker, while Sharon Tate's Jennifer North seems to have originally been a combination of Marilyn Monroe and Anita Ekberg.

Alas, even these superficial resemblances in the original novel scarcely exist any more in the film version. All we are left with is a soap-opera plot straight out of a daytime television serial. True, the direction is slick, and the acting very capable (with the one exception of Miss Parkins, who is unable to surmount some very unattractive hair styles).

Other assets include lavish production values (though Daniels' color photography, as usual, looks washed-out); exciting special effects incorporating a slice of a French "art" film and an incredibly tasteless TV commercial — evidently intended as a satire, it was taken perfectly straight by the predominantly female audience at the session I attended, — and a few excellent montages of the New England countryside (accompanied by the pleasant singing of Dionne Warwick).